AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 7 December 2001

Regina v Risati LAUPAMA

[2001] NSWSC 1082

Homicide
SENTENCE

Citation: Regina v Risati LAUPAMA [2001] NSWSC 1082
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 7 December 2001
Judge(s): Bell J

Background

The prisoner, a 29-year-old man, was charged with the murder of a five-year-old girl, the daughter of his former de facto partner, at Cabarita Beach on or about 30 December 1999. He had hanged the child from a pergola at the family home in the early hours of the morning. He subsequently held the child's mother at knifepoint, compelled her to drive to Sydney with the child's body in the back seat, and abandoned the body in bushland near Brunswick Heads before being apprehended later that day.

The prisoner pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The Crown accepted that plea in full discharge of the indictment, on the basis that the prisoner was, at the time of the killing, suffering from an abnormality of mind that substantially impaired his responsibility for his actions, reducing his liability from murder to manslaughter under the partial defence of substantial impairment.

The sentencing proceedings also took into account the kidnapping of the child's mother during the journey to Sydney, as a separate matter to be reflected in the overall sentence.

  • What sentence was appropriate for manslaughter where liability was reduced from murder due to substantial impairment by abnormality of mind?
  • How should the kidnapping of the child's mother be factored into the overall sentence?
  • Whether a discount for the utilitarian value of the guilty plea was warranted, and if so, at what level?
  • Whether special circumstances existed under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to justify a departure from the standard statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the head sentence?
  • Whether a recommendation for deportation upon release was appropriate?

Decision

Bell J accepted that, while the prisoner stood to be sentenced for manslaughter rather than murder, the offending remained very serious. The killing of a five-year-old child, the premeditated nature of the act (evidenced by the prior preparation of the ropes), and the subsequent conduct in holding the mother at knifepoint and compelling the journey with the child's body all pointed to a substantial sentence.

Her Honour applied a discount of just under fifteen percent to reflect the utilitarian value of the guilty plea. The plea had been offered in a timely manner, though the court noted that any trial would have been relatively short and not particularly complex, tempering the weight given to the plea in the calculation.

The court accepted that special circumstances existed under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, justifying a longer than usual ratio of the sentence remaining after the non-parole period. The prisoner's psychiatric difficulties and the desirability of extended supervision upon release were the basis for that finding. The court also took into account that the prisoner had been assaulted while in custody and would likely serve most or all of his sentence under protection conditions.

Bell J declined to make a recommendation for deportation upon release. The matter had been raised only briefly at the conclusion of the hearing, was not ventilated at any length, and her Honour considered it more appropriate to leave the question to the Executive at the relevant time.

Orders Made

  • The prisoner was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, dating from 30 December 1999.
  • A non-parole period of 8 years was specified.
  • The first date of eligibility for consideration for release to parole was 29 December 2007.

Key Takeaways

  • A plea to manslaughter on the basis of substantial impairment, accepted by the Crown, does not preclude a lengthy custodial sentence where the circumstances of the killing and surrounding conduct are particularly serious.
  • Under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, psychiatric difficulties and the need for extended post-release supervision can constitute special circumstances justifying departure from the standard non-parole period ratio.
  • A guilty plea discount of just under fifteen percent was applied, with the court noting that the brevity and straightforward nature of any potential trial moderated the utilitarian weight of the plea.
  • Custodial conditions, including the likelihood that a prisoner will serve their sentence under protection following an assault in custody, are a recognised factor in the sentencing calculus.
  • The Supreme Court declined to make a deportation recommendation where the issue was raised only briefly and without full ventilation at the hearing, treating it as a matter for the Executive rather than the sentencing court.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 44(2)

Cases:
- Regina v Barnett (unreported) NSWCCA, 16 February 1994
- Regina v Blacklidge (unreported) NSWCCA, 12 December 1995
- R v Chayna (unreported) NSWCCA, 8 June 1993
- Regina v Dawney [1999] NSWSC 944
- Regina v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
- Regina v Grierson (unreported) NSWCCA, 28 October 1996
- Regina v Letteri (unreported) NSWCCA, 18 March 1992
- Regina v Li [2000] NSWSC 1088
- Regina v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
- R v Woodland [2001] NSWSC 416
- R v Barton [2001] NSWCCA 63
- Veen (No. 2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465